Iraq Shenanigans

A few days ago the Republicans introduced a measure asking President Bush to cut and run from Iraq. It’s the second time they’ve done that and I’m starting to wonder about their resolve.

I'm kidding, of course. Like the Republican's first cut-and-run proposal, this one was also a political stunt. Way to go, GOP. Keep playing partisan politics with our troops.

I heard Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy for President Reagan and now Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, talking about Iraq on the radio today. The guy makes a lot of sense. It's pretty clear that Republicans are too heavily invested in their failed "stay the course" routine to change direction and win. It's time to let Democrats clean up the mess.

And we need to clean up the mess while we still have allies in Iraq. Yesterday, Japan announced they're gettin' out while the gettin's good. Most of the other significant coalition nations -- Italy, Poland, Spain, etc. -- have already drawn down or left and Australia will start pulling troops out later this year as well. Pretty soon it'll just be us and whatever British troops haven't been redeployed to Afghanistan.

And did you see where the Iraqis want to offer amnesty to every insurgent that's targeted US soldiers? It's a total slap in the face, but Republicans like Senator Ted Stevens think it's a great idea. "I'm for it," says Stevens," What's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven?"

Here's the difference, moron: In Germany, Japan, and the Civil War, amnesty was granted after the enemy surrendered and the fighting was over.

I can see the point Senator Stevens and his Republican colleagues think they're making -- and if the war was over and US troops were leaving I'd also say 'let's let bygones be bygones' -- but there will be significant numbers of US troops in Iraq for years to come. That being the case, Stevens is just an idiot to suggest a "get out of jail free" card for people who kill our troops.

Anyhow, it's clear that Republicans cannot be trusted to defend America (putting our port security in the hands of al Qaeda's bankers?!! C'mon, Reps! Use your heads), they cannot win the war on terror, and they completely lost Iraq.

Let's face it, unless you want to count the tiny Island of Grenada, Republicans cannot win a war. Eisenhower signed the cease fire in Korea, Nixon abandoned Vietnam, and now Bush lost Iraq. I'm not going to count Bush's Dad as a Republican because he fought like a Democrat with overwhelming force, clear objectives, a well-defined exit strategy AND as part of a UN-backed international coalition.

Following those tested and effective war-fighting principles, Democrats won both World Wars and recently won lasting victories in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Democratic strategy of containment also won the multi-generational Cold War. Democrats successfully concluded short and long wars and Democratic solutions proposed by people like Senator Clinton and Jim Webb are far more realistic and effective than Republican's "stay the course" rhetoric.

It's no surprise that Democrats are able to garner the support of most high-ranking military officers, are fielding so many Iraq War veterans as candidates this year, and have such a wealth of military and foreign policy strategists supporting them (Gen. Wes Clark, Gen. Anthony Zinni, and Thomas P.M. Barnett immediately come to mind).

"Stay the course" is just Republicanese for "We have no idea what to do next."

Now I am by no means fo giving amnesty to these people, but to characterize it the way you did is so far off. Iraq is still formulating its policy and it definately does not include EVERY insurgent that has killed an American. In fact if you do some research, (and stay away from the far left blogs) , you will find they are working on making that an exception to the amnesty.

|amnesty was granted after the enemy surrendered|

Duh! No they are going to give amnesty to them and they dont even have to stop fighting and lay down their arms. What a deal!

|Nixon abandoned Vietnam|

That was Kennedy and Johnsons war if you study history. Nixon wouldnt have had to pull out if they had ran it right. And I believe his pullout was what you lefties wanted wasn’t it. Is that what we call a lose lose situation?

|and now Bush lost Iraq|

I forgot! You are a prophet. I am saving this blog and I’ll repost your words in 5 years. Now we might just lose or we might just win. But could you tell me what this weeks mega-lotto numbersd are?

|The Democratic strategy of containment also won the multi-generational Cold War|

HaHaHaHaHa!

Ignore the rest of these comments. This is the one I want you to prove. These is my questions. Just what actions did we use to containg them? When was the cold war won? And can you find me anyone really respected and politically savvy that could back you up on that?

|putting our port security in the hands of al Qaeda’s bankers?!! |

That is just an entire misstatement of facts. Maybe it was sopposed to be humorous. I did not like the ports deal to much either but what you stated is not what was going on.

Look it up for yourselves everyone!

|Democrats won both World Wars|

Even if this was 100% true, you are talking about an entirely different group of Democrats. The far left wouldnt have even been alowed in that old Democratic party.

Otherwise we will let history settle this one. I’ll be happy to wait to judge this one in 20 years. Just like with Reagan, (Who the majority of the people in Grenada love, I lived there for almost a year.) The Dems have had to do quite a bit of back tracking.

BTW - If you want to go to the best vacation place on earth, go to Grenada. Stay at the Rainbow Inn in Grenville. Tell Aunti Nits, the owner Scott sent you. You will come back the most relaxed you ever have. They will be more than happy to tell you who gets the credit for winning the cold war!

I want them to live in a world where there is Democracy flourishing in the Middle east. It will never happen you may say? 3 elections and 70% participation in the last election. I would say that is a good start and I want us to stay until we know they are on their feet. Not one day more.
And you can say all you want, they are getting there. One foot in front of the other.

A majority of the American people want us to set a time table and leave Iraq. When the president was in Iraq to meet personally with the new goverment, the new government ask the president to set a timetable for withdraw. Seventy percent of the Iraqis want us to leave now. I wonder if that is the same 70% that voted in their election. Tell me again, what are we fighting for. Did you say oil? Surely not.

That statement is the most false statement I have seen in days. The new government asked for benchmarks, not a time table and over 50% want us to stay at least until things are solid. All of them wish we did not have to be there.

I encourage a quick look at the polls by everyone to stop this blatent falsehood.

BTW-
Iraqis overall have a positive view of the
toppling of Saddam Hussein. Asked,
“Thinking about any hardships you might
have suffered since the US-Britain
invasion, do you personally think that
ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or
not?” 77% say it was worth it, while 22%
say it was not.

Pundit: An amnesty will at some time be neccessary for Iraq to heal. To my thinking your most damning critiqe was how the Reps are playing politics with the lives of our servicemen. We can expect a media clampdown and glowing reports out of Iraq at least until Nov. Anyone that believes military accounts without some large grains of salt knows nothing of history.

A timeline IS an exit strategy. To adopt either would mean that the administration would have to give up on the true original goal,to secure oil supplies.

Aldous: To use your analogy. We started the fire so we should stand there and throw more fuel on the fire hoping it will go out?

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”

First of all, dems do not think we are at war, so, what exactly are those Iraqis surrendering from? (can’t be terrorism…)

Secondly, dems think the the new Iraqi government is really a puppet manipulated by the US. Where did the strings on this one go? (Iraq think independently? no way…Bush must be behind this action somehow…it has to be a cover up…he has to be lying)

Thirdly, dems want a absolute timetable for departure in Iraq. Are you embarassed to follow a political process and put your vote in the public limelight? (according to you, this should only help you in November…dems should love this)

Aldous, the American presence in Iraq gives strength to Al Queda. Do you imagine that ifa unified and stable Iraqi government emerged, that Al Queda could last any length of time at all? The US cannot defeat Al Queda in Iraq, because it does not have the cultural sensitivity or local knowledge to gather sufficient intelligence to enable it to so defeat them. This is not taking a swipe at the US, it is merely a statement of the obvious. If the Iraqis are unified behind a consensus govt that has the means to project its authority, then they will themselves make very short work of Al Queda. But the American presence is merely throwing fuel on the fire of what generates Al Queda recruits. The thing about terrorists is that, the more you kill, often the more you generate - a many headed hydra.

Not to mention while the Clintons pocket cash from these guys to ADVISE them. Of course, we don’t manage any of our ports and I suppose that is somehow Republicans fault as well….right?

“Like the Republican’s first cut-and-run proposal, this one was also a political stunt.”

Is this to imply that everything else is not a political stunt? Did not the Republicans propose this to appease the Democrats? Yes, if memory serves we have quite a few cut-n-run supporters in big blue, outside of Hillary. (I think secretly she may be as well).

“Democrats won both World Wars”

(LOL), actually men like McArthur and Patton did.
Our nation can no longer handle a REAL war. Too much media. McArthur and Patton would not be allowed to serve today. They would be in prison. We could end this war in a week if we fought it like we did in WWI and II.
Every time we kill someone they want to bring up murder charges. Democrats have been the main stumbling block not to mention a media that only reports the negative and rarely the positive. Not the case in WWI & II. Our government is much more divided and so are the people. Divide & conquer?
Bush is using “controlled” aggression and I think it is the wrong tactic. More will die with this war policy than if we used an all out approach. Paul, don’t stretch your ridiculous assumptions to support such a lame political game.

The fundemental objective of Al Qaeda is the reduction of outside infulences on Islamic affairs. Regardless if this lends itself well to democracy or healthy foriegn policy, the people that claim that merely our being in Iraq strenghtens Al Qaeda, are absolutely correct.

When President Bush was in Iraq the Iraqi government ask for a time table and President Bush gave them a time table for withdraw. The two governments are working together side by side in unison and both have the same goal.

There goal is to establish security in Iraq to the point in which the Iraqi military and Iraqi police can handle without the help of foreign troops, then withdraw coalition forces. The time table to withdraw troops that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki Administration has agreed on is in place. Maliki has asked for a time table and he got one but he agreed that this “time table” should not be public. Maliki stated that the last thing we need to do is announce to the terrorist our military security plans.

It is a shame and embarrassing the President Bush can trust the PM of Iraq with sensitive information not to be leaked to the press more than he can trust some Democrat politician that would use the knowledge of the time table for political reason. The first thing the Democrat Senators or Congressmen would do if they knew the time table that Bush and Maliki agreed on would be hold a press conference and reveal the time table and then complain they do not like it. Democrats would do it intentionally knowing that they are revealing sensitive information about military troop movement to the enemy.

I think both parties share the credit for the Cold War victory. But I do believe that Reagan was essential in the end. He made a major change in our stance toward the Soviets. At the time he took a lot of crap from liberals and our European allies, who said he was going to start WWII. Find me a liberal source (with the possible exception of Brzezinski) who supported the Reagan policies in the mid 1980s and did not call him crazy or stupid. Now that it worked, everyone says it was part of their plan all along. They didn’t think it was THEIR plan back when the plans were being made. It was not. I remember. Reagan was very energetic in countering the Soviets and he completely changed the policies followed in previous decades.

Nothing in history is inevitable. I believe a second Carter term following by Mondale would have preserved the Soviet Union or at least left us in a worse position when it fell.

In Iraq, we have been adapting all along. Stay the course refers to keep on trying to win. It does not mean the methods remain unchanged. The President’s goal will be as it has been to get our troops out when conditions permit. We don’t want to be there a day longer than we need to be, but staying a day less is more dangerous.

If Dems have no stomach for the fight, let them call for departure. When they were given the chance to vote on it; they demurred. I am glad they voted. It seems petty, but Dems want it both ways. Just like they were on the record supporting the invasion, they are on the record supporting continued operations. Soon many will claim that the super genius Bush tried them a second time, but it ploy will work less well.

Jack - Overall I agree but want to point out that when the Democrats voted in support of Bush it was largely due to the public sentiment requiring it. At that particular time Republicans and Democrats alike were still in the midst of a reacting to 9/11. America needed to know that government would deal with any sense of potential threat. Now, it seems as though the reasoning behind our goals and the potential threat has changed enough to cause some leaders to rethink that support. Call it being fickle if you like, but the ablilty to consider and act on new information is not character flaw.

Scott, you are NOT to be believed. The very link you cite contains within it the FACT that more than 70% stated they wanted the U.S. out within 24 months. PDF. Almost half of those said within 6 months. And that was in January, 5 months ago. So adjust for the passage of time.

Do you even read the polls you offer to others as support for your misstatements and lies? Lie and Die. That is what Democrats are saying in retort to Republican’s cut and run. Kinda fits if Scotts comments are evidence.

Yeah. Every team manager knows this strategy. But, surprise, only a few eventually win when most of them lose. Maybe “we must prevail” is not enough strategy to win afterall… Maybe a strategy should be not just repeating the objectives but find the best way to accomplish them, no?

Does just keep trying to win give you the best way to win? What if your opponant keep harder than you???

But you see I have 2 neices. (one 4 yrs and one 9 mos.)
I want them to live in a world where there is Democracy flourishing in the Middle east.
Posted by: scott at June 23, 2006 02:30 AM

Well, Scott, I have two children, 7 and 9, and I want them to live in a flourishing Democracy.

I’m guessing you didn’t hear that Iraq called a State of Emergency in Baghdad today after insurgents set up raod blocks and started offensive actions against our troops and the Iraq army? This “stay the course” nonsense won’t give us Democracy in either location (ME or US). One step forward three steps back is the Bush course we’re on.

But not many Dems have changed their minds. I recall that only seven Senators voted for the withdrawal resolution this week. They may still be bowing to public sentiment, but that really is not an excuse if they don’t believe in what they are doing.

Philippe

Lots of people get credit. I always mention various Polish leaders, Margaret Thatcher, Pope JBII etc. I can also credit Mitterrand for strongly supporting the intermediate missile idea when Moscow inspired peaceniks were trying to split the alliance. Several of these people were necessary but no one was sufficient. The point I am making is that Reagan’s policy was a bold tangent. Had we follow the old policy as it was, we would not have achieved the same result, and since the result was very good, we probably would have done worse.

I give Gorbachev credit for NOT doing what the Chinese did, but his goal was never the fall of the Soviet Union or Communism. He is a lot like a guy being pulled down a fast moving river who chooses not to destroy his canoe, a wise and good decision, but not one that determines the destination.

Re Iraq, I don’t know what we can do but try to win. We have to be smart and adaptive Our opponent is also smart and adaptive. But if the bad guys (not us BTW) win in Iraq, we have trouble all around. I really do not believe we can lose unless we pull out before time is right. We may not achieve an optimal result, but if we remain engaged (I won’t use the term stay the course) we will achieve an acceptable one.

Jack - If its any consolation, it would seem that the faction of Al Qaeda in Iraq is strategically inept.

It would take almost no effort for them to cease hostility and go completely underground. Without this hostility they are relatively indistinquishable from other Iraqi’s, and would be virtually invisible. After a nice rest, they could slowly re-emerge into mainstream society, perhaps join the Iraqi armed forces, or immigrate into other areas of the world. Meanwhile the U.S. would be in the position of “Whered-dey-go?”, and short of instigating unsanctioned neo-mccarthyism would have little choice but to leave. Up until now, Al Qaeda has had a rather tactical approach to hostility that prevents them from doing damage with any one blow to more than 1 to 5,000 people at a time. I’m certain that if they were to take a break, relax, and just think about things strategically, well, the possibilities could be endless.

If our presence causes these insurgents enough agitation to continue hostility, we continue to have tangible targets.

I think that this is what drives the decision of both sides to continue to support this effort.

“The first thing the Democrat Senators or Congressmen would do if they knew the time table that Bush and Maliki agreed on would be hold a press conference and reveal the time table and then complain they do not like it.”

Bingo Mr. Right. The nunber one problem with politics. Party first. I have met the enemy and it is us.

Scott, |you are NOT to be believed. The very link you cite contains within it the FACT that more than 70% stated they wanted the U.S. out within 24 months.

Well we will cover that in a moment: Read this:
|Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of within six months and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1

The most recent poll.

I looked and looked and did not find your figure in the PDF. Did you read it right? It is kinda hard.

|Scott, you are NOT to be believed.|

Don’t believe me. Look for yourselves. But I gave lots of facts. You could only pull apart one with a PDF you dont believe others will take the time to open and search through. Look it up people. He called me a liar. See for yourself

Dave:

|Well, Scott, I have two children, 7 and 9, and I want them to live in a flourishing Democracy.|

I think they do. Dont they? And they do because it has been well protected over the years.

Jack, My only problem with stay the course, is that it is a surrender to the original notion of embedding a democratic domino in the region. I bought this argument about a year and a half ago. I no longer suscribe to it.

Iraq has shown no signs of raising an effective military, other than the militias that already existed. There is ingrained ethnic hatred that is not going to just vanish. We are using strong arm techniques to hold it together. We lack the ruthlessness of Sadam and are thus ineffective even at that.

As an energy strategy, we must remain active in the region until will can become oil independent. Sadly, I have not seen this administration speak to this idea. There needs to be a massive push toward this independence. This will realign the OPEC and Oil companies into much more amenable entities as they realize their power will diminish as they grasp too greedily.

A redeployment into Turkey and Kuwait, Afghanistan, Qatar or other friendlies, ready to resolve the civil war that will follow, by dividing Iraq into a Kurdish, Sunni/Bathist, and Kurdish region when that becomes necessary. It will allow the current regime the slim but legitimate chance to stand on their own and further isolate the sunni insurgency. This will conserve our resources to be used as needed in the region and help to diffuse the use of our presence as a tool of Al Qaeda.

Cliff - I never said we had a real choice in the matter, and I’m not saying that we’re deserving of the sheer hatred that they bestow on us. I’m only replying to your question regarding the killing of infidels with the information that put us in that catagory. I don’t want people to ever forget that Al Qaeda used fight on our team until we found ourselves forced to piss them off. It sucks. We had lille choice. It still sucks, and we still have little choice.

I think they do. Dont they? And they do because it has been well protected over the years.

Posted by: scott at June 23, 2006 01:37 PM

But not for long. I want those freedoms for when they’re my age.
For whatever reasons that you think giving “democracy” to the ME autocracies will give your descendents a better life here, the methods your leader has chosen to do so is only destroying our society. I know you think Bushes posturing about “Family” etc… is for real, but he’s done nothing for the religious right other than place fascistic leaning supreme court justices. He has also reset the balance of power to one-sided dominance by the presidency and ignored the bill of rights that has kept our freedoms secure. I don’t know how old you are but if this keeps up we’ll be a slave state by 2025.
Posted by: Dave at June 23, 2006 2:53 PM

Scott,
I really don’t understand why your touting this poll as a support for the ‘stay the course’ crowd. did you read the whole thing??
Here’s some tidbits from the poll:
80% believe US plans permanent bases, against bush’s direct promises.
76% believe US would NOT withdraw even if asked by the new government.
70% desire a set timeline for withdrawl.
87% want their government to push for a timeline.
47% APPROVE of attacks on US forces.
If US were to withdraw in 6months, 67% believe their day to day security WOULD IMPROVE, about 60% believe that ethnic tensions, presence of foreign fighters, and violent attacks would drop.
If US were to withdraw in 6months, 73% believe their ethnic factions would cooperate more, 67% believe their basic services would improve, and 64% believe that crime would drop.
Bottom line, they want us out, soon. Period.
Yep, that was worth 30,000 US casualties and a trillion dollars. Yep. Uhhuh. Totally.

“I recall that only seven Senators voted for the withdrawal resolution this week. They may still be bowing to public sentiment, but that really is not an excuse if they don’t believe in what they are doing. “

They recognized that the withdrawl proposals were only traps set by the right to get election mudslinging ammunition. Witness the coordinated attacks this week from republicans from cheney to house and senate leaders, to right wing pundits, ALL using the same phrases (like they were reading a memo) like “cut and run”, “surrender”, etc.
The right is very coordinated. They ALL play the same playbook. Democrats need to orginize the same way in order to win, which is all that matter at this point.

I understand that most Repubs are following the president in their belief that to leave now would be a mistake, but what sign are you all waiting for?

Let’s not forget, all of the problems that we currently face in the Middle East are as a result of our regime toppling, military training, nation building past. When are we going to learn that these people do not want to be modeled after us? If they do, let them stand up and fight for it. If not, not my problem.

I have no trouble leaving when it is the right thing to do. Nobody wants to be there any longer than necessary. I just oppose a firm timeline that does not take into account conditions. I think that it just makes sense to keep open the options. It may come a time when we have to give up, but it is not now. I do not think we can afford to lose and I don’t think we will lose unless we leave before condtions permit.

I can’t believe this crap you and yours keep regurgitating…
We’ve lost Iraq? Which planet are you on? Democrats clean up a mess? Do you mean create?
Just because you may have a bully pulpit does not grant you intelligence, moron. Maybe if you grew a brain you could see reality.
You and your treasonous, coward ridden crowd can all immigrate to North Korea.

And, in the meanwhile let’s not forget that other “theater” in the war on terror:

“I would not be surprised if Afghanistan progresses to the level of Iraq’s violence. There is an anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan now. That’s where you see recruitment by militants,” said (Mustafa Alani, director of security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center).

All those things are in the poll.
What is not in the poll is JLW’s statement that 70% want us out now. And that was the point I was refuting. Nor does it say that 70% want us out in 24 months as Dave stated.

And I gave a few links to a few polls for people do do their own research. That one is 6 months old. Again I refer you to the most recent one:

|Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of within six months and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.|http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1

i never said everything was hunky-dorey in Iraq. It is the left who would have us to believe that the entire country hates us and wants us out now. That is the lie!

As is this-

|Yep, that was worth 30,000 US casualties and a trillion dollars. Yep. Uhhuh. Totally.|

Where is the government hiding all those extra 28,000 casualties? Last I heard we topped 2000.

BTW if you read the data carefully, the bulk of those high numbers fall in the Sunni range. I do believe the Nazi’s felt the same way after we fought WWII. But the people we freed from Hitler sure didnt. Look Back at the PDF and see just how the numbers sort out. I think you will find the people that want to go forward are largely for US and the poeple who want to go backward are aginst US.

Again folks, see why you have to reasearch yourselves to find the truth? Don’t listen to either one of us. Look it up yourselves.

“Where is the government hiding all those extra 28,000 casualties? Last I heard we topped 2000.”

Actually, as of today, its 2512 dead.
The definition of casualty is dead AND wounded. The death toll is actually quite low compared to the number wounded because of huge advances in battlefeild emergency care, mobile hospitals and body armour. What were left with, however, is HORRENDOUS wounds, multiple lost limbs, faces blown off, severe brain injuries.
PTSD claims are off the charts (my wife works for the VA claims center here in Reno)
As for the trillion dollar bill, that’s the lower of estimates done by economists, factoring in up front costs, long term economic impact, replacing all those bombs and bullets, long term care for another generation of disabled vets.

Yes observer you are right on the definition. I am wrong. sorry. But that number 30,000 is still high:http://icasualties.org/oif/
Year Death Injured
2003 486 2409
2004 848 7992
2005 846 5946
2006 335 2009
Total 2515 18356

And notice this, it is rather interesting:
Serving Wounded Deaths
World War I 4,734,991 204,002 53,402
World War II 16,112,566 671,846 291,557
Korean 5,720,000 103,284 33,741
Vietnam 8,744,000 153,303 47,424

291,557 deaths in WW2 was it worth it?

Another thing to note about Iraqi polls for all you out there. They are generally separated into three groups. The lefties always want to use the total. But if you look at those who are for democracy and going forward (Kursds and Shiites) They are always well above half that are in support of us.

The Sunnis who do not want democracy and want to go backward are generaly against us by about 80%

KCC, Hey that’s the spirit! All coward morons with bully pulpits who think we lost the war. Nice, now what was your point? Oh right treasonous coward liberals with bully pulpits.

I don’t think we are to the point of time tables and perhaps what was handed to Nouri Maliki, was probably easily backtrackeble crap too. We are in that som’bitch for the longhaul.

Aldous is right—PlayNice’s comment was hillarious. I don’t know if Aldous is being facetious but it is true.

If we split, the nation would be overrun by the Shiia and the Mahdi Army under Al Sadr. There would be a Bosnia styled bloodbath and a theocracy to boot. Al Sadr would turn against us being that such a position would give him more power and it’s the Ayatolla-theocracy all over again with a major civil ethnic cleansing conflict. This thing could go from quagmire to hellfire in a day upon our leaving there as every junta wants control of that oil. It’s a royal golden goose and they’d jump claim to it lightning fast.

Our presense there may be flypaper to the insergency but what else do we do? There are no options other than finish the job now. We busted into the place and there is no evidence that there would result a glowing peace to the region should we leave.

Would it be better off if we left?—thinking of them not us—would it? Would it be overnight peace or guerrilla juntas patrolling and killing to control the country and snatch it from the Sunni or from the Shiia? See what I’m saying we stay and we are targets but also enforcement, we leave and it’s war on alot of different levels.

I ask the opposition this; Okay so we leave then what happens? What happens to Iraq? Does it become MORE stable?

Scott, Observer quoted from the PDF. I took the numbers from the PDF. Either you are lying which I never accused you of above, or you insist on not reading the poll, or you read it but lack the ability to understand what it says. But the poll you linked to clearly states and I quote:

Asked what they would like the newly
elected Iraqi government to ask the US led
forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor
setting a timeline for the withdrawal of
US forces. This number divides evenly
between 35% who favor a short time
frame of “within six months” and 35%
who favor a gradual reduction over two years.

In case you are no good with Arithmetic, the poll was conducted in Jan. of 06, and 24 months from then, is 19 months from now. 70% setting a timeline for withdrawal with the next 19 months, which demostrates I was the one who read the poll and accurately quoted from it, and you who accused me of misrepresenting were the one who clearly either misrepresented what the poll said, or didn’t read or understand the very link you touted in this thread.

What is not in the poll is JLW’s statement that 70% want us out now. And that was the point I was refuting. Nor does it say that 70% want us out in 24 months as Dave stated.

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years

Ok Lets make this easy.

30% want no timeline.
70 % do want a timeline
35% of the 70% want us out gradually over 2 years
35% of the 70% want us out within 6 months

you left out the part where it says:
29% of the 70% say it should only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.

None of those scenarios = 70% want us out now as was first posted by JlW
Nor does it equal 70% want us out in 24 months as you stated
A third of the 70% want us to leave as the situation improves.

I already said that what observer posted from the PDF were true. I did not disagree with those figures.

Page 3 of the PDF gives no poll numbers but does state that there was an oversampling of the Sunnis.

And as I said before, Break it up and the numbers are lower than that. Look at the Statistics on the Kurds and the Shiites. They are the ones who want their country to go forward with freedom. The Sunni’s want to go backward to the dictatorship. The raperooms, the mass killings. When they controlled everything. Had all the wealth and power. Of course they don’t want us too finish.

The point is still that it is a false statement to say 70% want us out now!
It is also a false statement to say that 70% want us out within 24 months.

70% do want a timeline. Not all of that 70% want us out in 24 months no matter what.

Also to show you where your error is coming in:
here is what you pasted:

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years.

Here is the full Qoute:

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”

Scott, you still are not understanding what you quote. All you added to my quote was: “Just 29% say it should only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”

70% said within 2 years, (now 19 months)and 29% said reduce troops as the security situation improves. 70% plus 29% equals 99% with the other 1% being fractional. That equals the 100% which is the total of those polled on this question.

You have again reasserted what I have said is accurate and true, yet, you don’t even see it in what you quote. This is quite amazing!

Well, quote away. The words we have put forth and their original source speak for themselves.

David
I have to apologize you are right.
I was reading it as the 70% broken to three parts.
Again I apologize. However JLWs original statement (which was why I brought it up in the first place)
that 70% want us out now is dead wrong.

The separation still stands tho. Much less than 70% of Kurds and Shia want us out that fast. And the large majority believe the whole thing was for the best.

Scott said: “However JLWs original statement (which was why I brought it up in the first place)
that 70% want us out now is dead wrong.”

That is quite correct. JLW’s use of the word now, was not accurate.

Apology accepted.

The Kurds have never had it so good. But the Kurds reside in a part of Iraq that is largely separate from the rest of the Sunni-Shiite nation. For the Kurds, the Sunni-Shiite conflicts must look like a divide and conquer through patience windfall. I think the future will see Kurds demanding an independent state if they don’t get a proportional share of oil and tax revenues for their northern provinces. And if that happens, Turkey joins in the fray!

The key thing to watch out for though is this. With the majority of Iraqis wanting an end to the occupation within 2 years, and with the Iraqi government’s dependence on the U.S. and other nations to keep progress moving forward in order to stay hostile sentiment toward the government, if the U.S. refuses to remove its military presence (a distinct possibility considering the billions we are pouring into permanent bases there), and the Iraqi government sanctions it, the people of Iraq could turn against their own government which hosts U.S. military beyond the 2 year time frame Iraqis expect for departure to take place.

This is at the heart of the quagmire that has become Iraq. Our very presence threatens Iraq’s future. Our exit, may also threaten Iraq’s future, if followed by either a civil war or, a harsh martial law regime which is growing as we speak.

It is possible there will be an overall positive outcome to Iraq in the not too distant future. But, if it exists, it is not yet visible. And that is the political dilemma that Republicans are wrangling with today. All they have to offer is stay and pray for the best. They don’t have a concrete step by step plan to insure the success of the new government or resolution to the host of sectarian issues it will face as time marches on.

I could see that reflected in Pres. Bush’s comments this last week or two as he is now stressing that it will be the Iraqi Government that will bring triumph to their democracy, not the U.S. military. He used to say “we” will bring democracy and victory to Iraq. Now he is saying that is the Iraqi’s responsibility as if to distance his administration from the potential of failure in Iraq to succeed as a unified democratic state stable and secure.

I will surprise you to say I agree with alot of what you said in the last post.

However add this to your thinking and I thinky you will understand the Republican point of view.

We live in the NOW generation. We ant everything NOW. The world doesn’t work that way tho.
We are slowly but surely building up Iraqi forces, both police and military. It takes time. It takes our own new rookie cops 3 years to get into the groove. (my best friend is a cop)
Training Iraqi military is reletively easy. Training their military leadership is not. Our military leadership has 10 to 4o years of experience.
The left started calling it a quagmire after we first got started. Bush said from the begining that the war would be easy. It was. It took 6 weeks. But that rebuilding would be hard. we are getting there.
I believe we will continue to remove our troops over the next couple of years until our presence there is very very small. That has always been in the plan that you say Bush doesnt have.(research that one)

Now have there been mistakes? YES of Course.
Every war has mistakes. Without knowing you I can honestly say that you have made some reall dum mistakes at the begining of every job you have held. We all do. I own a pizza place. My employees
make mistakes. I make mistakes.

The problem is that the left hates Bush so much, all they ever do is pounce on every mistake and ignore any good.

The reason the left will again end up on the wrong side of history is that in 25 years, when a new generation of Iraqi’s are raised in an atmosphere of freedome, and there is a semblance of democracy in the middle east, the world will look back and see that it was the right decision. A hard one? Yes. Nothing worth having is easy.

Civil war? The left has been jumping on every little problem and yelling civil war for TWO Years now. It hasn’nt happened. The large majority of Iraqi’s do not want it. Even the Sunni’s.(look that one up too).

Another 70%. The Iraqi’s turnout at the last election. That includes a majority of Sunnis.

It is going to take time for this all to happen. Maybe I am too much of an optimist but I beleive the love for their freedom will make sure that they will succeed.

You see David, the lefts hatred towards Bush makes you not see that we are accomplishing the task. you guys point out every mistake to try to prove that we are not succeeding. (However the same poll we were discussing shows that the large majority of Iraqi’s believe that we are on the road to success.) Run a business that way. You will fail.
You hate Bush for wiretapping. The three credit bureaus have 100 times the info on every American in the US. You guys hate him so you dont trust him. I want him to protect us from an attack here so I do. So does the majority of Americans on this issue.

But back to Iraq. We Will succeed if we do not lose our will. The Iraqi’s are going to succeed. The Sunnis are evn slowly going to come around. But it is going to take time.
If we had a democrat in charge of this war there would still be mistakes. More? Less? Nobody knows.
But the constant would be that it is going to take time.

I am making more than one post out of this as I sometimes push the wrong key and erase. LOL

|It is possible there will be an overall positive outcome to Iraq in the not too distant future. But, if it exists, it is not yet visible.|

See it has been visible to me since day one. The hatres for Bush and a desire for his failure is why the left does’nt see it.

|For the Kurds, the Sunni-Shiite conflicts must look like a divide and conquer through patience windfall|

Every poll (research it) has shown that all three groups depite their differnces want a united Iraq. It is who makes the decisions that they disagree upon.

|a distinct possibility considering the billions we are pouring into permanent bases there|

The administration and the Iraqi govt. has made it clear that those bases are for the Iraqi’s after we leave. We might leave a small presence there for another 5-6 years. Right decision? Wrong decision? Debatable. But the Iraqi govt has publically stated that that is what they want.

|harsh martial law regime which is growing as we speak.|

Again it is a young govt. and it will grow. Make some mistakes? Yes. But see now the people have the opportunity to vote them out if they do. I have confidence.

|I could see that reflected in Pres. Bush’s comments this last week or two as he is now stressing that it will be the Iraqi Government that will bring triumph to their democracy, not the U.S. military.|

Yes this is part of the process. they have only had a finished govt for two weeks now. We brought them democracy and now they have to build it, defend it, and finish it. Again this will take time.

|It is possible there will be an overall positive outcome to Iraq in the not too distant future|

Thats the attitude David! LOL I believe from your past posts that you are an honest thinker. Many lefties are not. It is just all hatred. That doesn’t help the Iraqi’s or Our troops.

—s- I have voted many times over these past many years an I still vote for best candidate using Ability, Character, Honor and Trust-ability! I have no idea how you judge your candidate an I suppose it is not my business. I see none of these characteristics in George Bush or others who make statements like you do about other people!

Jack, while I don’t think we should load up the helicopters at the embassy just yet, I think we need to make it clear to the Iraqi gov’t: “We’re outa here, so get yer shit together and quick.” I then think we need to redeploy nearby and intervene when it comes time to divide up Iraq. I am convinced that day will come.

This setting a deadline and date stuff is pure Republican political speak. I don’t know one Dem setting a date. Big CLUE: When we aren’t there, the Insurgents will be the first to figure it out. They won’t need the timetable. They’ve already figured out we never intended to stay, we understaffed the fight(how many times have we taken Fallujah ,now?) Bush only has two more years. Next big hint: We aren’t Arabs and don’t live there, they do. We weren’t Vietamese either.

Thanks, SE. Sorry I was silent so long, I just moved back to the States. I’d like to say I kissed the ground when I landed at LAX, but have you seen the ground there? Ewww! I waited until I got home. :)

I don’t know what we can do but try to win.

Jack, define victory.

By every pre-war goal, Bush already failed in Iraq. Iraq is not and never will be a liberal democracy; it’s an Iranian-backed, Iranian-style theocracy dominated by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq with a constitution built on Sharia Law and al-Sistani has a veto on all legislation through the Supreme Federal Court. That’s what Iraqis want.

Iraq is not a free-market economy. The economy and major industries are still centrally controlled by the government in Stalinist-style top-down fashion.

There were no WMD or WMD programs.

There were no operational al-Qaeda connections (until after Bush’s invasion).

The reconstruction failed. Iraq is not, and will never have an infrastructure that’s the envy of the region. The funding dried up last year and Bush gave up.

Define victory in Iraq, Jack. Or anyone.

And I hope y’all come back with defeating the terrorists as the goal. Zarqawi’s assassination by over-the-horizon forces acting on good intelligence just highlights the fact that US ground troops are unnecessary in that role.

American pundit.Victory in Iraq-When the enemies in the united states are shut down then and only then can we win in Iraq.Use your imagination as to who the enemies are in the U.S.A.This would be those who fight the U.S.A. as hard as Usama Bin-Laden.